The Karnataka High Court has held that the welfare of a minor child, the need for maintenance and a man's admission of a physical relationship with the child's mother cannot, by themselves, justify ordering a DNA test to determine paternity.
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed that courts must first examine the evidence already available and establish whether scientific testing is genuinely necessary before directing an individual to undergo a DNA examination.
The Court clarified that a child's welfare is an important consideration, but it cannot replace the legal scrutiny required before interfering with an individual's right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
Background
The matter arose from a maintenance petition filed on behalf of a minor child before the Bengaluru Family Court. During the proceedings, the child's mother sought a DNA examination under Section 45 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, to establish the biological relationship.
The Family Court allowed the application on March 18, 2026, directing both the child and the petitioner to provide blood samples. The petitioner challenged this direction before the High Court, arguing that an earlier civil court had already rejected a similar request for DNA testing.
The High Court acknowledged that a child's right to maintenance does not depend on whether the parents were married. However, the liability of a person to maintain a child must still be established through legally admissible evidence. The petitioner's admission of a physical relationship with the mother was relevant but did not conclusively establish paternity.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, the Court emphasised that DNA testing should only be ordered when the available evidence is insufficient and the balance of interests justifies such an examination.
The Court observed:
"Nevertheless, the welfare of the child, important as it is, cannot be treated as a substitute for the judicial inquiry required before directing DNA examination. The child's need for maintenance establishes the importance of deciding the claim expeditiously. It does not necessarily establish that the claim is decided only through scientific testing."
Addressing the petitioner's right to privacy under Article 21, Justice Kanneganti further observed:
"Merely observing that the welfare of the child is paramount does not answer whether the proposed examination is necessary and proportionate."
The Court also clarified that an earlier rejection of a DNA test application does not automatically establish that the alleged biological relationship does not exist, unless paternity itself has been conclusively adjudicated.
Finding that the Family Court had not adequately examined the available evidence or balanced the competing rights, the High Court set aside the DNA testing order dated March 18, 2026.
It remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration, directing it to examine the earlier civil proceedings, applicable statutory presumptions, available evidence and the actual necessity of DNA testing.
If testing is considered necessary, the Family Court must record reasons establishing its necessity and proportionality.
